It's been proven time and time again that it's cheaper to provide free lunches to any one than it is to bill children individually. Also, properly fed student behave better in class.

"Is the order on the screen correct? Please confirm." Fixed.

Sure this seems like a good thing, but Google is going to install digital signage along all these routes to sell ads.

Seems like an obvious solution.

Number 2 - 10: domesticated cows, pigs, chickens, cats, dogs, etc...

Just like Theranos (and many others) Magic Leap got a patent for their projection tech even though they never developed a prototype. They created a portfolio from that initial patent and shopped it to get billions in investments. After bilking investors, they realized that they couldn't make a legit prototype and here we are.

We should probably kit them out with solar, wind, and energy storage....... but we all know they will end up as advertising.

I don't need a complex hinge and folding display, just give me an old fashion hinge right in the middle.

Academia and inventors have been using synthetic data for half a decade especially for image processing and object detection. Basically the soap opera effect on your TV for image based training sets to remove noise. Real data is noisy. Imagine teaching a child how to speak over a telephone. Pronunciations will be all over the place.

This is patently false. The Office examines patents at a loss. It's only the maintenance fees that raises the revenue to stream into the black.

Actually, the PTO doesnt break even until the 3rd maintenance fee of a granted patent. That means it costs more than charged to exmine a patent. The fees are structured to distribute the burden onto all of the filers, especially those large entities and grantees. The PTO is the only self-funded government entity and consistently turns a profit that is reallocated by Congress. The PTO isnt understaffed or overworked, the Examiners are underpaid. That's why there is so much attrition. Only about 30% of newly hired Examiners remain in the office after 2 years. That means it's difficult to maintain institutional knowledge. You want better patents, tell Congress to pay examiners more.

That is completely false. Numerous studies and books have been written that have shown that a robust IP system allows innovation to thrive and bootstraps a strong university system which ultimately pulls developing countries in line with more developed countries.

See Valencell. Talk to any PTAB judge, they see these frivolous IPR petitions regularly. It's gotten so bad that it's bogged down the regular prosecution docket.

That stifles innovation more than you think. We'll end up back in feudalism because technical knowledge would be hoarded by the wealthy. The idea behind a patent is a temporary monopoly for publically disclosing how to make your invention so others learn and improve on it. It's the precursors to open source and wikipedia. The patent databases are one of the most important compendiums of knowledge in human history.

The outcome has nothing to do with the strategy behind frivolous IPR petitions. If an FTO analysis brings up potential infringers on a soon the be granted patent, those companies are going to trying keep you from asserting said patent. Every major comparation monitors certain CPC classes for the latest grants in the fields. Time to market is only for non-tech companies. High tech companies typically wait for protection before they step on high gear to bring a product to market. Once they get the coveted patent then they pursue larger/institutional inventors. This is a huge issue with real tech startups, not the Shark Tank "start ups" that you're imagining.